So, what do you have which will convince me I'm wrong and you are right

What the ****? Where is this coming from?

I have a feeling you are one of those people who become like an .exe file when "debating". I'm not talking to the multi-faceted person Kerdy right now, I am instead talking to kerdyevolutiondebate.exe.

That's a damn shame.

What's a more serious shame is when people claim evolution as fact, as has been done since the first page of this thread, but have been unable to present it as fact, they automatically want to attack a faith issue. This is simply disingenuous. Creationists don't prance around claiming they can prove something we didn't witness. That's what evolutionists do. We make our claims based on Scripture and Tradition as well as lack of convincing evidence from other claims. What evolutionists fail to understand is there are multiple scientific possibilities to explain what they claim. We just point out where it doesn't work so well in those claims. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Or do you disagree? My views on the Garden of Eden is irrelevant to evolution and your attempt to connect the two is not academic. Unless, of course, you are prepared to prove God exists.

I simply cannot understand, just what this so-called "creationism" is about. One might as well establish a movement called "anti-electromagnetism." Biological evolution is a FACT, just like the existence of electricity is a fact. That life on the planet Earth is being diversified because of the biological evolution is a valid scientific theory, just like that the potential in an electric circuit is determined by the electromagnetic field is a valid scientific theory. There is no "crteationism," it's just silly, stupid, ignorant.

The evolutionists reveal that their theory is ideological rather than empirical by their emotional reaction to anyone who dares to point out holes in their theory. Empirical science is completely detached from raw emotion and subjective opinion, but the evolutionists become passionately inflamed when anyone asks for them for empiral proof. And when they can't provide such proof, they always say it's because the rest of us aren't scientists. That's like me saying they have no right to comment on anything they read unless they're an author.

Selam

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

It's important to the discussion because as long as the evolutionists can keep the conversation steeped in philosophy then they can distract us from the fact that they have no empirical evidence to support their theory. Anytime I have ever challenged an evolutionist to prove their theory, one of the first things they do is bring up religion.

Selam

Actually Gebre, the reason why I resort to a religious argument with you is because your rejection of evolution isn't scientific, but religious. Your biggest problems are that evolution teaches death exists before the Fall and that the Earth is much much much older than 7000 years old (give or take a few thousand). In fact, let's again be honest, none of you will give a rat's tail about evolution of it wasn't for your preconceived religious notions, not scientific.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Lets see. Does evolution comply with scientific theory? Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no. Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only. This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.

Selam

Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.

I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up. I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.

We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis. It's called disagreement, not ignorance.

I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them. Instead, questions were asked of me. It doesn't work that way. Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.

They were already answered for you. You simply just made up your mind.

Humility dictates that you even agree to disagree, but you take things further and imply "expertise" by debating and knowing how science works. Let's be honest. Is anyone here debating against evolution in a respectable science occupation with research that involves principles of evolution?

Chrevbel is trying to show you how science works by a Socratic method. But you avoid it because of your pre-conceived notions of how science works. And are you a scientist?

The best way to explain science is to compare it to detective work on crimes. Obviously you can't see a direct observation, but you observe the results of whatever happened and work backwards to solve it. The problem is you are asking Chrevbel to prove evolution by going back in time and observing it, whereas Chrevbel is telling you we are forward in time, and are trying to figure what happened in the past. That's the what he's trying to explain to you, but you're too stubborn to see it and blame scientists for being "philosophically oriented" and lead Gebre to believe theistic evolutionists are the "atheist's idiots".

Humor Chrevbel. Answer his question so that he can better explain science to you as he practices it rather than as you understand it, because clearly the "multiple" biology classes you took seem to either not have done a good job explaining science to you or you just rejected everything the teacher said but passed based on what the teacher is looking for. Either way, this whole discussion is useless with you if you're not going to be stubborn-minded to understand how people like me, , Chrevbel and Celticsfan understand science.

They were answered, but incorrectly. If you say 2 plus 2 equals 47, you have to show me. It isn't my fault he math doesn't add up. You talk about preconceived ideas as if you are immune. Evolution is a preconceived idea in every aspect. Like I told you before, I once accepted evolution, until I realized it didn't make sense. I have used evolutionists words in my debate, not mine, which is where you fail. You don't understand, apparently, evolutionists failures and there are a lot of them.

His questions were irrelevant and not the topic of discussion. It's a distraction ploy used by several groups when they can't support what they say. The way you understand science is warped from the way it should be understood and even Chrevbel has admitted it's simply a hypothesis which can't be factually supported. But you folks are free to be upset with me. I'm not the problem, it's your take on science and all of those biologists who say you are wrong. Not to mention those who support evolution who say thing contrary to what you may say or things you declare are never said. Evolution is a crap shoot. It proved itself to me to be bogus and continues with every scrap people grab hold to in an effort to prove its real. I'm looking forward to the next partial 3cm piece of bone and 54 feet away a tooth is found so we can create an entirely new ancestor to man, only later to find out it too is false.

I'm still waiting for my first question to be answered. Of anything asked, it should be the easiest.

And your detective example was accurate, but a mistake to use with me. I'll give you one guess what I do for a living.

Detective?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

It's important to the discussion because as long as the evolutionists can keep the conversation steeped in philosophy then they can distract us from the fact that they have no empirical evidence to support their theory. Anytime I have ever challenged an evolutionist to prove their theory, one of the first things they do is bring up religion.

Selam

Actually Gebre, the reason why I resort to a religious argument with you is because your rejection of evolution isn't scientific, but religious. Your biggest problems are that evolution teaches death exists before the Fall and that the Earth is much much much older than 7000 years old (give or take a few thousand). In fact, let's again be honest, none of you will give a rat's tail about evolution of it wasn't for your preconceived religious notions, not scientific.

With respect my friend, your assumption is completely inaccurate. I had scientific problems with evolution long before I became an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian and learned what our Church teaches regarding the age of the earth.

Selam

Logged

"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

The evolutionists reveal that their theory is ideological rather than empirical by their emotional reaction to anyone who dares to point out holes in their theory. Empirical science is completely detached from raw emotion and subjective opinion, but the evolutionists become passionately inflamed when anyone asks for them for empiral proof. And when they can't provide such proof, they always say it's because the rest of us aren't scientists. That's like me saying they have no right to comment on anything they read unless they're an author.

Selam

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

There's no way to dialogue with anyone who claims to have a monopoly on scientific understanding. And the evolutionists are the ones who arrogantly claim such a monopoly.The rest of us are just asking for evidence. Forgive us for our empirical objectivity.

Selam

Logged

"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Lets see. Does evolution comply with scientific theory? Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no. Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only. This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.

Selam

Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.

I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up. I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.

We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis. It's called disagreement, not ignorance.

I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them. Instead, questions were asked of me. It doesn't work that way. Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.

They were already answered for you. You simply just made up your mind.

Humility dictates that you even agree to disagree, but you take things further and imply "expertise" by debating and knowing how science works. Let's be honest. Is anyone here debating against evolution in a respectable science occupation with research that involves principles of evolution?

Chrevbel is trying to show you how science works by a Socratic method. But you avoid it because of your pre-conceived notions of how science works. And are you a scientist?

The best way to explain science is to compare it to detective work on crimes. Obviously you can't see a direct observation, but you observe the results of whatever happened and work backwards to solve it. The problem is you are asking Chrevbel to prove evolution by going back in time and observing it, whereas Chrevbel is telling you we are forward in time, and are trying to figure what happened in the past. That's the what he's trying to explain to you, but you're too stubborn to see it and blame scientists for being "philosophically oriented" and lead Gebre to believe theistic evolutionists are the "atheist's idiots".

Humor Chrevbel. Answer his question so that he can better explain science to you as he practices it rather than as you understand it, because clearly the "multiple" biology classes you took seem to either not have done a good job explaining science to you or you just rejected everything the teacher said but passed based on what the teacher is looking for. Either way, this whole discussion is useless with you if you're not going to be stubborn-minded to understand how people like me, , Chrevbel and Celticsfan understand science.

They were answered, but incorrectly. If you say 2 plus 2 equals 47, you have to show me. It isn't my fault he math doesn't add up. You talk about preconceived ideas as if you are immune. Evolution is a preconceived idea in every aspect. Like I told you before, I once accepted evolution, until I realized it didn't make sense. I have used evolutionists words in my debate, not mine, which is where you fail. You don't understand, apparently, evolutionists failures and there are a lot of them.

His questions were irrelevant and not the topic of discussion. It's a distraction ploy used by several groups when they can't support what they say. The way you understand science is warped from the way it should be understood and even Chrevbel has admitted it's simply a hypothesis which can't be factually supported. But you folks are free to be upset with me. I'm not the problem, it's your take on science and all of those biologists who say you are wrong. Not to mention those who support evolution who say thing contrary to what you may say or things you declare are never said. Evolution is a crap shoot. It proved itself to me to be bogus and continues with every scrap people grab hold to in an effort to prove its real. I'm looking forward to the next partial 3cm piece of bone and 54 feet away a tooth is found so we can create an entirely new ancestor to man, only later to find out it too is false.

I'm still waiting for my first question to be answered. Of anything asked, it should be the easiest.

And your detective example was accurate, but a mistake to use with me. I'll give you one guess what I do for a living.

Detective?

Depending on which agency one works for depends on the title, but yes, pretty much.

The evolutionists reveal that their theory is ideological rather than empirical by their emotional reaction to anyone who dares to point out holes in their theory. Empirical science is completely detached from raw emotion and subjective opinion, but the evolutionists become passionately inflamed when anyone asks for them for empiral proof. And when they can't provide such proof, they always say it's because the rest of us aren't scientists. That's like me saying they have no right to comment on anything they read unless they're an author.

Selam

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

There's no way to dialogue with anyone who claims to have a monopoly on scientific understanding. And the evolutionists are the ones who arrogantly claim such a monopoly.The rest of us are just asking for evidence. Forgive us for our empirical objectivity.

Selam

Evidence was already presented. You just either lack understanding or refuse to understand. They don't claim monopoly. They simply have given you the geological, embryological, anatomical, biochemical, physiological, and genetic data that supports the principles of evolution, and you sit there accusing them of "monopoly."

I highly doubt your belief that you had scientific reservations before religious ones. If you did, you indeed have very little understanding of how science works. I already addressed this to you in another thread. You're just too arrogant and stubborn to realize this in yourself.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Lets see. Does evolution comply with scientific theory? Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no. Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only. This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.

Selam

Yep. If all humans are just nothing but dust, composed of cells, etc. then eugenics is completely justifiable.

Perhaps, but if I realize that this bit of dust that I call "me" is not ultimately different from that bit of dust that I call "you", if I realize that we are all dust, and that we all feel pain and suffering, then I can also conclude that just like I don't want the "me"-dust to suffer, I don't want the "you"-dust to suffer either -- since, ultimately, where can I draw the line between the "dusts"?

I don't think "materialism" itself is the problem. I think the problem is lack of empathy/sympathy and emotional inter-relatedness.

Always my foil, Jetavan

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Lets see. Does evolution comply with scientific theory? Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no. Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only. This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.

The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.

Selam

Yep. If all humans are just nothing but dust, composed of cells, etc. then eugenics is completely justifiable.

Perhaps, but if I realize that this bit of dust that I call "me" is not ultimately different from that bit of dust that I call "you", if I realize that we are all dust, and that we all feel pain and suffering, then I can also conclude that just like I don't want the "me"-dust to suffer, I don't want the "you"-dust to suffer either -- since, ultimately, where can I draw the line between the "dusts"?

I don't think "materialism" itself is the problem. I think the problem is lack of empathy/sympathy and emotional inter-relatedness.

Always my foil, Jetavan

At your service.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Creationists don't prance around claiming they can prove something we didn't witness. That's what evolutionists do.

You continue to claim this, but I don't know that I've ever heard an evolutionist state that anything was proven. In fact, I witness quite the opposite. For example, from the April 7, 2005 issue of Nature:

Quote from: Zollikofer et al

Primary distortion in TM 266-01-60-1 results from morphological discontinuities along major cracks between the left and right sides of the face, between the supraorbital torus and the zygomatics,between the left and right posterior cranial vault including the nuchal plane and basioccipital, and along a coronally oriented crack between left frontal and temporoparietal portions of the vault (Fig. 1; also see Fig. 1 in ref. 1). However, anatomical continuity is well preserved in the sagittal and parasagittal planes, particularly between the face, the neurocranium and the basicranium. Anatomical continuity in the basicranium extends from the basisphenoid to the nuchal plane and within each of the cranial units delimited by major cracks, as evident from matching fracture lines between adjacent parts. Plastic deformation resulting in left–right asymmetry is noticeable in the maxilla. The fossil is barely affected by expanding matrix distortion, and no missing regions need to be estimated to reconstruct its original form.

To me, this seems like a pretty balanced and academic way of presenting information. They acknowledge the fossil's limitations. They state the fossil's characteristics. Reading the remainder of the article, I see nowhere that they've tried to draw inferences not in evidsence.

Where have you seen evolutionists prance around claiming they can prove something [they] didn't witness?

If you take God at his word, then why do you allegorize the Garden of Eden? You don't believe it was an actual place located in the universe, but instead take it to be a mere representation of the "unfallen world"?

What are you talking about?

Okay.

What was the world like outside of the Garden of Eden, versus inside the Garden of Eden?

This is important to the discussion of evolution because?

You brought up taking God at his word in the context of creation.

Ah, I see now. Distraction tactic to shift the focus. I thought that is what it was but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt just in case I was incorrect. I have been fairly forward lately and thought it best if I relaxed this time.

I was trying to find out whether or not you took God at his word some of the time, but not all of the time (what many EO creationists seem to do), which would either damage or enhance your ethos re: the discussion regarding evolution and deviating from God's word currently at hand. Sorry for assuming you were in that camp prematurely.

If it's a distraction tactic, okay. So are you refusing to discuss how you envision the Garden of Eden and the world outside of it?

Are you positing that the Hypothesis of Evolution describes what was going on outside of Paradise (the Garden) while Genesis describes what was going on inside of it?

Are you positing that the Hypothesis of Evolution describes what was going on outside of Paradise (the Garden) while Genesis describes what was going on inside of it?

I think that would be a clunky metaphysical-biological Frankenstein.

Genesis describes both.

Genesis describes how various things were brought about: Plants, animals, the metal plate that holds back the primordial waters in the sky, the luminaries affixed to said plate, the earth placed upon the lower waters, and, of course, humans. It says these things were created good.

It then says that the humans are placed in a garden in this world; human mortality and disunity with God are associated with expulsion not from an "unfallen world" in general, but from the garden specifically. Non-human death is not explicitly mentioned, but it is taken for granted that plant death would occur in paradise when humans and animals consume things that grew (because, as our Lord himself said, the belief was that a seed died even when you planted it), and we know that the predator-prey relationship is facilitated by God from the psalms.

Genesis does not say that the Garden of Eden was an allegory for the unfallen world. It does not say whether or not there was animal or plant death within the Garden or without it. So if one were to, as Kerdy claimed to do, "take God at his [Scriptural] word", then he would not be able to allegorize Eden as "a representation of the totality of the unfallen world". He would have to have a more nuanced and interesting view. He chose not to comment on whether or not he does this.

However, I bet you could find some of the Greek Fathers allegorizing Eden as meaning "the unfallen world".

In any case, my point was to address Kerdy's association of Creationism with "taking God at his word". I sought to explore whether or not he was taking God at his [Scriptural] word, or patristic interpreters at theirs.

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Creationists don't prance around claiming they can prove something we didn't witness. That's what evolutionists do.

You continue to claim this, but I don't know that I've ever heard an evolutionist state that anything was proven. In fact, I witness quite the opposite. For example, from the April 7, 2005 issue of Nature:

Quote from: Zollikofer et al

Primary distortion in TM 266-01-60-1 results from morphological discontinuities along major cracks between the left and right sides of the face, between the supraorbital torus and the zygomatics,between the left and right posterior cranial vault including the nuchal plane and basioccipital, and along a coronally oriented crack between left frontal and temporoparietal portions of the vault (Fig. 1; also see Fig. 1 in ref. 1). However, anatomical continuity is well preserved in the sagittal and parasagittal planes, particularly between the face, the neurocranium and the basicranium. Anatomical continuity in the basicranium extends from the basisphenoid to the nuchal plane and within each of the cranial units delimited by major cracks, as evident from matching fracture lines between adjacent parts. Plastic deformation resulting in left–right asymmetry is noticeable in the maxilla. The fossil is barely affected by expanding matrix distortion, and no missing regions need to be estimated to reconstruct its original form.

To me, this seems like a pretty balanced and academic way of presenting information. They acknowledge the fossil's limitations. They state the fossil's characteristics. Reading the remainder of the article, I see nowhere that they've tried to draw inferences not in evidsence.

Where have you seen evolutionists prance around claiming they can prove something [they] didn't witness?

My friend, I have found myself at a respectable appreciation for your position. When I found you were not presenting evolution to me as far too many have it the past, my problem with your position vanished. I now have no axe to grind with you as you have insisted you are not presenting it as proven fact, rather your view based on the evidence you have found, to which I have no issue. I appreciate your patience with me if I missed this early on in our dialogue.

Name just one Orthodox Saint who takes creation of Adam and Eve as allegorical and quote him/her please.

Even in the beginning, when woman was made from a rib in the side of the sleeping man, that had no less a purpose than to symbolize prophetically the union of Christ and His Church. Adam's sleep was a mystical foreshadowing of Christ's death, and when His dead body hanging on the cross was pierced by the lance, it was from His side that there issued forth that blood and water that, as we know, signifies the sacraments by which the Church is built up. "Built" is the very word the Scripture uses in connection with Eve: "He built the rib into a woman."... So too St. Paul speaks of "building up the body of Christ," which is His Church. Therefore woman is as much the creation of God as man is. If she was made from the man, this was to show her oneness with him; and if she was made in the way she was, this was to prefigure the oneness of Christ and the Church.

St. Augustine, The City of God

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, since life (including man) was created out of existing material then there's nothing mysterious in it.

There's mystery in creation precisely because it was created out of non-existence. This I believe science won't be able to touch. The only thing science can investigate is things that existed to explain things that exist now. Nevertheless, even the non-mysterious aspects of science point to me the mystery of its non-existence in the light of it's ex nihilo origins. When there are things that are revealed to us, there are also more questions and mysteries asked. Therefore I believe creation to be a paradox of mystery and non-mystery, and I find that a fitting allegory to Christ's human and divine natures.

Again, there's no mystery (per evolutionary theory) in life and all of its manifestation since it "explains" how it came to be. All you need is matter with given properties and voila, all is ready. In fact today's distorted science goes so far that they claim to know even the beginning of the Universe. All you need is some type of singularity and once this thing "explodes" the Universe unfolds. Scientists even can give you (in their mind of course) detailed events and math formulas of the process. So, today you have left as a mystery only this singularity. Tomorrow science will claim to have an answer even to the origin of it. There's no mystery anymore. Where exactly do you see mystery left?

The fact that we exist is a mystery in and of itself. Mystery is not about unexplained physical phenomena in the world. Real mystery is the purpose of our existence. This is my reason for belief. It doesn't matter how much science will figure out unexplained phenomena. But science will be unable to figure out our spiritual destiny and purpose. In this, I see mystery even in things we see and know.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since everything evolves starting from simple to more complicated then man must also evolve into something. Mutations in man always happen and the environment constantly change. These things will lead to future man. So what is this future man? What is his shape/form? What is his moral? What is his religion? What is his relationship to his kins? and so on.

Man has the intellectual power to slow down evolution, and rightfully so, since this reveals to us the Image of God in man. In a fallen world we may be evolving into smarter or healthier forms of humans, but human evolution is so slow, I don't think we will be a new species. Nevertheless, even after the second coming of our Lord, we know we will continue to grow and multiply "from glory to glory". Therefore, I don't believe we will evolve into a completely new species, but evolve no more than into Christ's perfection, when Christ will appear in His second coming, and will progress us to a more better and perfect way of growing/adapting and multiplying/evolving from glory to infinite glory.

What does it mean "we will continue to grow and multiply "from glory to glory" "? I know for certain that around the time of the Savior there were many more Saints and Angels on the earth then now. In fact in one they several hundred people received true Spirit of God. In fact around that time people in thousands would dye for God. Now people will dye to get this and that dress, this and that car ... We all live like animals. I don't see we've evolved. If anything we have devolved. That is why precisely theory of evolution is created. That theory gives support to evolved man, a man who strives towards becoming god. Per that theory we don't need God anymore. Next step is much more evolved "beings" from out of space.

That people strive to become gods is a fact of life, just as the world does not offer the peace that Christ gives is also a fact of life. But just because people try to strive to be like god without God does not mean it will happen. Just because evolution, as a result of a fallen world, occurs does not mean that it's possible to become god without God. Evolution is an allegory to what God has in store for us. Just as evolution provided the glory of creation to go from one glory to another higher glory, so do "we all, with unveiled face, be holding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Cor. 3:18). And I believe this is the glory of His divinity that would be working in all of us, something that no science can understand or test.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Depending on which agency one works for depends on the title, but yes, pretty much.

Ok, great!

I'm no expert in detective work, but I would love to learn how it works. Let's say someone reports a dead body at a scene. What do you do when you arrive there? Am I even asking the right question?

First thing is to secure the scene. After that, it depends on where the body is and what the environmental conditions are, but there are A LOT of moving parts to control.

I'll be happy to answer what questions I can if you message me. I don't want to take away or change the direction of the thread.

Actually, my intention was not to take away from the subject at hand. From what I understand, many people like to use detective work and the scientific method as analogies to each other. So I was hoping to see if in fact it is a valid analogy. So if you don't mind, let's pursue this further publicly so that maybe we can come to an understanding of why we feel evolution is valid science.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

My friend, I have found myself at a respectable appreciation for your position. When I found you were not presenting evolution to me as far too many have it the past, my problem with your position vanished. I now have no axe to grind with you as you have insisted you are not presenting it as proven fact, rather your view based on the evidence you have found, to which I have no issue. I appreciate your patience with me if I missed this early on in our dialogue.

I am convinced that the earth was formed somewhere around four billion years ago and that life arose sometime in the first billion years of its existence. From that primordial life, all life forms currently on the planet evolved, including humans sometime in the last quarter million years. Those humans share a common ancestor with today's apes, arose first in Africa, and sometime prior to recorded history extended their range to include much of the planet. I believe that this view is consistent with all known observations. In a nutshell, that is my version of the hypothesis. In a nutshell, what is your version of your hypothesis?

I've added a little more to my original version, so that it now includes who, what, when, and where. If you would do the same, then we could discuss and compare and contrast the different possibilities of how.

Name just one Orthodox Saint who takes creation of Adam and Eve as allegorical and quote him/her please.

Even in the beginning, when woman was made from a rib in the side of the sleeping man, that had no less a purpose than to symbolize prophetically the union of Christ and His Church. Adam's sleep was a mystical foreshadowing of Christ's death, and when His dead body hanging on the cross was pierced by the lance, it was from His side that there issued forth that blood and water that, as we know, signifies the sacraments by which the Church is built up. "Built" is the very word the Scripture uses in connection with Eve: "He built the rib into a woman."... So too St. Paul speaks of "building up the body of Christ," which is His Church. Therefore woman is as much the creation of God as man is. If she was made from the man, this was to show her oneness with him; and if she was made in the way she was, this was to prefigure the oneness of Christ and the Church.

St. Augustine, The City of God

I don't see anything in St. Augustine's statement that indicates he thinks the creation of Adam and Eve was purely allegorical. A literal event can symbolize and foreshadow future realities. Such symbolism does not mean that the actual event was merely allegorical and not also literal.

Selam

« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 10:03:34 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus »

Logged

"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Name just one Orthodox Saint who takes creation of Adam and Eve as allegorical and quote him/her please.

Even in the beginning, when woman was made from a rib in the side of the sleeping man, that had no less a purpose than to symbolize prophetically the union of Christ and His Church. Adam's sleep was a mystical foreshadowing of Christ's death, and when His dead body hanging on the cross was pierced by the lance, it was from His side that there issued forth that blood and water that, as we know, signifies the sacraments by which the Church is built up. "Built" is the very word the Scripture uses in connection with Eve: "He built the rib into a woman."... So too St. Paul speaks of "building up the body of Christ," which is His Church. Therefore woman is as much the creation of God as man is. If she was made from the man, this was to show her oneness with him; and if she was made in the way she was, this was to prefigure the oneness of Christ and the Church.

St. Augustine, The City of God

I don't see anything in St. Augustine's statement that indicates he thinks the creation of Adam and Eve was allegorical. A literal event can symbolize and foreshadow future realities. Such symbolism does not mean that the actual event was allegorical rather than literal.

Selam

Uh, ya, it is allegory. Whether or not it's taken literally, there's still an allegory. At least that's what the question asked.

But if someone is asking to provide for a quote that gives the possibility that some of the events did NOT happen literally, that's a different question. In which case, I usually cite Origen's Philocalia.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Such symbolism does not mean that the actual event was merely allegorical and not also literal.

"The term 'firmament' does not compel us to imagine a stationary heaven: we may understand this name as given to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid, and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the water above and the waters below..."

-St. Augustine, 'on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis'

"But as far as concerns the separation of the waters I am obliged to contest the opinion of certain writers in the Church who, under the shadow of high and sublime conceptions, have launched out into metaphor, and have only seen in the waters a figure to denote spiritual and incorporeal powers. In the higher regions, above the firmament, dwell the better; in the lower regions, earth and matter are the dwelling place of the malignant. So, say they, God is praised by the waters that are above the heaven, that is to say, by the good powers, the purity of whose soul makes them worthy to sing the praises of God. And the waters which are under the heaven represent the wicked spirits, who from their natural height have fallen into the abyss of evil. Turbulent, seditious, agitated by the tumultuous waves of passion, they have received the name of sea, because of the instability and the inconstancy of their movements."

"And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Before laying hold of the meaning of Scripture let us try to meet objections from other quarters. We are asked how, if the firmament is a spherical body, as it appears to the eye, its convex circumference can contain the water which flows and circulates in higher regions? What shall we answer? One thing only: because the interior of a body presents a perfect concavity it does not necessarily follow that its exterior surface is spherical and smoothly rounded. Look at the stone vaults of baths, and the structure of buildings of cave form; the dome, which forms the interior, does not prevent the roof from having ordinarily a flat surface. Let these unfortunate men cease, then, from tormenting us and themselves about the impossibility of our retaining water in the higher regions."

"Therefore we read: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name. Imagine a place fit to divide the moisture, sending it, if pure and filtered, into higher regions, and making it fall, if it is dense and earthy; to the end that by the gradual withdrawal of the moist particles the same temperature may be preserved from the beginning to the end."

-St. Basil the Great, On the Firmament

"But, boasting as they do that they know these things, let them first tell us about the things of inferior nature; what they think of the body of the heavens, of the machinery which conveys the stars in their eternal courses, or of the sphere in which they move; for, however far speculation may proceed, when it comes to the uncertain and incomprehensible it must stop. For though any one say that another body, like in fashion (to that body of the heavens), fitting to its circular shape, checks its velocity, so that, ever turning in its course, it revolves conformably to that other upon itself, being retained by the force that embraces it from flying off at a tangent, yet how can he assert that these bodies will remain unspent by their constant friction with each other? And how, again, is motion produced in the case of two coeval bodies mutually conformed, when the one remains motionless (for the inner body, one would have thought, being held as in a vice by the motionlessness of that which embraces it, will be quite unable to act); and what is it that maintains the embracing body in its fixedness, so that it remains unshaken and unaffected by the motion of that which fits into it?"

-St. Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius's Second Book

“...the vault of heaven prolongs itself so uninterruptedly that it encircles all things with itself, and that the earth and its surroundings are poised in the middle, and that the motion of all the revolving bodies is round this fixed and solid center...

“...on whatever side the sun's rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness...”

-St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and Resurrection

"Resuming then, let us first lay bare, in speaking of those things according to our power, the imposture of those who boast as though they alone had comprehended from what forms the heaven is arranged, in accordance with the hypothesis of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. For they say that the circumference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well-rounded globe, the earth having a central point. For its outline being spherical, it is necessary, they say, since there are the same distances of the parts, that the earth should be the center of the universe, around which, as being older, the heaven is whirling. For if a circumference is described from the central point, which seems to be a circle, for it is impossible for a circle to be described without a point, and it is impossible for a circle to be without a point,--surely the earth consisted before all, they say, in a state of chaos and disorganization."

-St. Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins

« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 01:32:50 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Depending on which agency one works for depends on the title, but yes, pretty much.

Ok, great!

I'm no expert in detective work, but I would love to learn how it works. Let's say someone reports a dead body at a scene. What do you do when you arrive there? Am I even asking the right question?

First thing is to secure the scene. After that, it depends on where the body is and what the environmental conditions are, but there are A LOT of moving parts to control.

I'll be happy to answer what questions I can if you message me. I don't want to take away or change the direction of the thread.

Actually, my intention was not to take away from the subject at hand. From what I understand, many people like to use detective work and the scientific method as analogies to each other. So I was hoping to see if in fact it is a valid analogy. So if you don't mind, let's pursue this further publicly so that maybe we can come to an understanding of why we feel evolution is valid science.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing. In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work. In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case. Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that). You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Karl W. Giberson's Seven Glorious Days, is an attempt to modernize the narrative of creation in Genesis 1-2:3, describing the seven days, or "epochs", in terms of the development of the cosmos as depicted by modern science.

"In the beginning God created all that is. The Logos of creation, out of which the heavens and the earth and all things within them burst forth, was the pattern of God's purpose from which everything would emerge and toward which everything would evolve.

And there was evening and morning, beginning and ending, of the first epoch of creation.

And God saw that it was Good."

« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 10:24:34 AM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 05:45:45 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

Evidence was already presented. You just either lack understanding or refuse to understand. They don't claim monopoly. They simply have given you the geological, embryological, anatomical, biochemical, physiological, and genetic data that supports the principles of evolution, and you sit there accusing them of "monopoly."

Theodosius Dobzhansky in his "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Quote

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

R. C. Lewontin

Quote

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory

People here think that creationists eaither can't read, or write, or search information, or understand what the've found or all of these together. How can one so blatantly misrepresent the facts and say evolutionists don't claim their theory to be fact? These most famous evolutionary biologists clearly state that evolution is fact. They also say that we, creationists, are stupid.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before. So, I don't understand how it's a failure. Look at earlier posts.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post? Because otherwise your bombardment of questions is nothing but an emotional response, and really in the end, you like to make yourself a scientist and disregard such studies as proof. Or you can go back to page one of this thread and read everything that is written, and then ask questions that haven't been asked here before.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 11:23:30 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before. So, I don't understand how it's a failure. Look at earlier posts.

You continue to divulge false and misleading information. The ability to teach evolution as scientific theory was presented in court. Evolution would never stand by its own merits.

In addition, you may want to look at those cases closely to see what exactly they all really do say.

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post? Because otherwise your bombardment of questions is nothing but an emotional response, and really in the end, you like to make yourself a scientist and disregard such studies as proof. Or you can go back to page one of this thread and read everything that is written, and then ask questions that haven't been asked here before.

Or you could give a clear definitive answer instead of what has been given. "Because" isn't proof. I would be happy for number 6. At least then The scientific method would apply and we could start calling it science. Of course, it would have to be duplicated several times with the same results.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before. So, I don't understand how it's a failure. Look at earlier posts.

Mina, not attacking you, but this statement is potentially misleading without context -- proven according to what standard?

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before. So, I don't understand how it's a failure. Look at earlier posts.

Ummm... that was a movie. I saw it. It's called "Inherit the Wind." Entertaining film, but hardly reality. But sadly, many people confuse fantasy with reality.

If you want an objective forensic analysis of evolutionary theory, read Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial. I mean, actually read it. Don't dismiss it out of prejudicial bias.

Selam

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 04:20:01 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus »

Logged

"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

I'm not missing anything. I also didn't provide the analogy.

In addition, if what you say is correct (I say it is not), all one must do is present an idea, any obscure or absurd idea, and unless a better idea with more evidence is provided, you call the first idea truth and fact, regardless of how stupid the idea may be. That is not science. That is comic book fiction.

I'm sorry, but "science" doesn't get off that easy. Prove your case or stop calling it the truth. Life is rarely as complicated as people attempt to pretend it is.

It would also help if people stopped attempting to sidetrack the topic here.

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

I forgot to mention your mistake. For an accusation to even be made, in legal work, evidence MUST exist.

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

Furthermore, the proof always must be supplied by the one making the claim, not the other way around.

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

Furthermore, the proof always must be supplied by the one making the claim, not the other way around.

Yet more evidence (er... proof?) of your ignorance of how science works.

Theodosius Dobzhansky in his "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Quote

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

R. C. Lewontin

Quote

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory

People here think that creationists eaither can't read, or write, or search information, or understand what the've found or all of these together. How can one so blatantly misrepresent the facts and say evolutionists don't claim their theory to be fact? These most famous evolutionary biologists clearly state that evolution is fact. They also say that we, creationists, are stupid.

First of all, no one is saying you are stupid! Last I checked on here, Gebre was the only one resorting to openly calling people stupid.

Secondly, according to Richard Dawkins, "a scientific theorum such as evolution or heliocentrism is a theory that conforms to the Oxford dictionary's 'Sense 1': '[It] has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; [it is] a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.' A scientific theorum has not been - cannot be - proved in the way a mathematical theorem is proved. But common sense treats it as a fact in the same sense as the 'theory' that the Earth is round and not flat is a fact, and the theory that green plants obtain energy from the sun is a fact.*" (P.13, "The Greatest Show on Earth"... note Dawkins uses the word "theorum", borrowing from math but changing the spelling to get his point across).